NORWAY Law and Practice Contributed by: Robin Aker Jakobsen, Amund Fougner Bugge, Jan Magne Langseth and Stig Walle, Simonsen Vogt Wiig
• the employees have the right to object to the transfer of the employment relationship, provided that this is communicated in writing to the previous employer within the specified time limit (which can- not be shorter than 14 days after the information with regard to the transfer has been given to the representatives of the employees); and • the previous employer and the new employer are required to provide information to the employees. The new employer cannot use the transfer of the undertaking as a basis for the dismissal or summary dismissal of employees. Regarding the role of the representatives of the employees, both the previous employer and the new employer have a statutory duty to inform and con- sult the representatives with regard to the transfer. The above-mentioned information must be given to the employees’ representatives. The purpose is to clarify the effects of a potential transfer and provide the employees (through their representatives) with a genuine opportunity to influence the decision. The representatives’ statements are not binding. How- ever, employers should (and, in principle, are required to) take this input into consideration in their assess- ment and should seek to reach an agreement with the representatives of the employees regarding the implementation of the transfer, so that the transfer is carried out in a manner that safeguards the interests of the employees. 5.7 Currency Control/Central Bank Approval In Norway, there are no specific currency control regu- lations or requirements for central bank approval for M&A transactions.
Sámi reindeer-herders claimed that these licences violated their cultural rights under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – a right protected under Norwegian law. The Norwegian Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the wind farms were in breach of Article 27 of the ICCPR, thereby affirming that Sámi are a minority protected under this article and that reindeer husbandry is a key cultural practice. The Norwegian Supreme Court found that Sámi par- ticipation and proposed mitigation were inadequate and that negative impacts on reindeer herding were significant. It held that Article 27 of the ICCPR does not permit weighing other societal interests against minority rights, except where other fundamental rights are at issue – which was not the case, as alternative wind farm locations existed. The Fosen case has set a crucial precedent for indig- enous rights in Norway, emphasising that developers must now rigorously address reindeer-herding con- cerns and involve Sámi communities from the start of planning. The Fosen case impacts not only wind power but other energy projects, potentially causing delays due to greater focus on Sámi and indigenous rights. The Øyfjellet Case The Øyfjellet case involves a wind power plant (72 turbines, 400 MW) in Vefsn, approved in 2014 and operational from 2022. The Jillen-Njaarke reindeer- herding district argued that the project blocks tradi- tional herding and migration and thus violates Article 27 of the ICCPR. On 20 December 2024, Helgeland District Court sided with Øyfjellet Wind AS and the Norwegian govern- ment in holding that the licence was valid and that mitigation measures (eg, migration routes and timing restrictions) allowed continuation of herding, making the impact less severe than in the Fosen case. The reindeer-herders have appealed the ruling from Helgeland District Court, with a verdict still pending as of October 2025. Unlike the Fosen case, the Øyfjel- let case does not fully block pasture areas but was considered by the Helgeland District Court to be a
6. Recent Legal Developments 6.1 Significant Court Decisions or Legal
Developments The Fosen Case
The Fosen case was a 2021 Norwegian Supreme Court decision on the “Storheia” and “Roan” wind farms’ licences in traditional Sámi reindeer-grazing territories.
336 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook